cops
Police brutality?
Jul 25th
You decide. Is this another instance of police brutality?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBU3Wo5rXH4[/youtube]
Cops lie and people die
Jul 7th
Grits for Breakfast points us to this important and disturbing story published in the L.A. Times a few days ago. It is a report on the murder of 16-year old Martha Puebla, whose name the police used while fabricating an identification.
They were trying to get her boyfriend for an unrelated murder and during their interrogation of him, they showed him a photo array (already a source of many problems) where they forged a circle around his picture with Martha’s initials and an “identification” beneath it.
To drive home his point, [police officer] Pinner laid down a “six-pack” — an array of mug shots that detectives often show to witnesses or victims of crimes. On it, [suspect] Ledesma’s photo was circled, and the initials “M.P.” were written below it. “Those is the guy that shot my friends boyfriend” was scrawled along the margin, followed by Puebla’s signature.
“I don’t even know a Martha,” Ledesma lied.
Police deceit during investigations and interrogations has long been tolerated (see, e.g. Illinios v. Perkins), but this may be one of those instances of the disconnect between theory and reality. In this case, it lead to Puebla’s death:
The next night, Ledesma reached for a pay phone outside his cell. “Cokester,” he said into the receiver, calling his friend Javier Covarrubias by one of his gang monikers, “do you know the slut that lives there by . . . my house? Her name starts with an M . . . I need her to disappear. She is dropping dimes.”
To the gang, Puebla was a snitch and needed to be dealt with.
“Uh huh, like that,” Ledesma told Covarrubias, using a mix of Spanish and English. “But [keep a] low-pro[file]. ..Stay on your toes, homie. And don’t get caught.”
Of course, this is also a product of the anti-snitching culture that has garnered much attention. But the fact remains that as a result of the deceit on the part of these law enforcement officers, a young girl is dead.
Cases like Illinois above have given cops free reign of the interrogation room – everyone’s heard of good cop, bad cop – and license to lie about almost anything, resulting in false confessions.
While I recognize the arguments supporting lying to suspects during interrogations, there has to be some sort of oversight and limits placed on the extent of permissible deceit. Certainly, endangering the life of someone who is innocent and whom the cops should know would be in danger of losing his/her life as a result of their lie should be outside those limits.
The responsibility of law enforcement is to protect citizens and ensure their safety, not to endanger them while engaged in a tunnel-visioned pursuit of “catching a criminal”.
So what is the line? When is deceit okay, if at all? Should it hinge on waiver of Miranda rights? I’ll expound on those thoughts in a later post.
There’s pretext and then there’s pretext
Jun 22nd
Among the many discussions clogging the bandwith of the local listserve this week was one about the validity of a traffic stop based on the police officer’s observation of an air-freshener hanging from the rear-view mirror of a vehicle. (Yes, I recognize that what’s in the accompanying picture is anything but an air-freshener.)
There’s pretext and then there’s this.
The legislature in its infinite wisdom deemed it worthy to make it a traffic offense to have anything hanging from the rear-view mirror of a motor vehicle. Codified in C.G.S. 14-99f(c):
No article, device, sticker or ornament shall be attached or affixed to or hung on or in any motor vehicle in such a manner or location as to interfere with the operator’s unobstructed view of the highway or to distract the attention of the operator.
The underlying intentions in passing this statute remain shrouded in mystery, yet there should be none about its use by law enforcement as a tool in pulling motorists over.
First of all, the statute doesn’t mention whether the obstruction of the view of the operator is a subjective or objective standard. So, boys and girls, what does that mean? That means if anyone (read: police officers) thinks it is obstructing the view, then it is.
Second, having anything hanging from your rear view mirror is giving cops automatic license to pull you over. Take Mr. Gamache for instance. He had:
“a large cluster of air freshener ornaments hanging from the rearview mirror,” “three and a half to four inches tall and maybe an inch and a half or two inches wide” obstructing “the peripheral vision, especially”
The cop doesn’t pull him over, but follows him for about half a mile, until he pulls into the parking lot of a bar. There, he approaches and “immediately noticed a very strong odor of alcohol and observed that the defendant’s
eyes were glassy and bloodshot.”
Mr. Gamache is placed under arrest for DUI.
This is not just a CT phenomenon. From footnote 2 of the opinion:
The reported cases reflect the wide variety of such objects. United States v. Barragan, 379 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2004) (air freshener); United States v. Santiago, 310 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2002) (golf ball-sized spherical crystals); United States v. King, 244 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2001) (parking placard); Moore v. Winer, 190 F.Sup.2d 804 (D.Md. 2002) (medic alert card); Duffey v. State, 741 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (dog tags); In re Jose Z., 116 Cal.App.4th 953, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 842 (2004) (Mardi Gras-type beads); People v. Paxton, 255 Cal.App.2d 62, 62 Cal.Rptr. 770 (1967), overruled on other grounds by People v. Tribble, 4 Cal. 3d 826, 484 P.2d 589, 94 Cal.Rptr. 613 (1974) (St. Christopher medal); Thompson v. State, 399 A.2d 194 (Del. 1979) (graduation tassel); People v. Alvarez, 243 Ill.App.3d 933, 613 N.E.2d 290, 184 Ill. Dec. 263 (1993) (cross
hanging on a chain); People v. Mendoza, 234 Ill.App.3d 826, 599 N.E.2d 1375, 175 Ill. Dec. 361 (1992) (fuzzy dice); Commonwealth v. Murray, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 872, 545 N.E.2d 858 (1989) (garter belt); De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So .2d 547 (Miss. 1997) (Masonic emblem); State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. 1992) (handcuffs).
Most states, however, require that the item hanging from the rearview mirror cannot materially obstruct the view. CT, on the other hand, requires that the view be unobstructed. There is no materially obstruct requirement. Indeed, in Mr. Gamache’s case,
Officer Solak testified that the air freshener did not obstruct the driver’s view to the front or rear of the vehicle, he could reasonably conclude that the operator’s peripheral vision in the right-hand direction was obstructed. These circumstances provided Officer Solak with, at the very least, reasonable suspicion sufficient to briefly detain the defendant and investigate the suspected violation.
The court then goes on to recognize that these infractions could lead to a vast majority of the motor vehicles on the road being pulled over, just the same as cars going 66 miles per hour.
So, in essence, it acknowledges that this is a pretext, but says that’s okay, because technically it is a violation of a statute.
The advice, then, is to not have anything hanging from your rearview mirror, even if it is a parking permit or a handicapped permit. Because that may potentially somehow perhaps in the eye of maybe one overzealous cop be viewed as obstructing.
I’m all for people driving safely and obviously not while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. This, however, gives police the power to pull over just about anybody they choose even when there is no visible indicator of erratic driving.
This is a hunch in sheep’s clothing.
Forced confession results in acquittal
May 3rd
The Kwame Wells-Jordan trial in New Haven has had it all: false confessions, recanting co-defendants, a near-fight between the state’s star witness and the prosecutor, a cop who has since retired amidst scandal and expert testimony on false confessions.
In the end, it looks like the system worked. A jury returned not guilty verdicts yesterday on all counts. Wells-Jordan was charged with being an accessory to assault, robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery. The victim, Herbert Fields, was shot dead during this robbery by another man, who plead guilty to murder.
The recantation and coercion:
But when Johnson [the co-d] testified during the Wells-Jordan trial, he recanted his police statement. Michael Holmes, who police believed was the third person involved in the robbery but was not charged, also contradicted his taped statement.
Wells-Jordan did not testify on his own behalf, but his aunt and legal guardian, Julia Sykes, testified she and her nephew underwent lengthy, high-pressure interrogations in September 2006 and two months later, the day he was arrested.
Skyes, Johnson and Holmes said [now retired, but still embroiled in scandal police officer] Willoughby told the three teenagers a lie in an effort to get them to confess: that their handprints were on Fields’ car. That handprint really belonged to [someone else].
There were two interviews between Wells-Jordan, his aunt and the police, the latter resulting in the false confession. The circumstances surrounding the confessions involved the usual “we know what’s best for you, so if you tell us you did it, you won’t be a defendant” spiel.
The expert:
So much resistance to change
Apr 30th
Cops really don’t like change, do they? One of the more noteworthy bills the legislature passed this past session was the one re-classifying 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles, as opposed to “youthful offenders”.
Why does this bother the cops? Because it means they won’t be able to talk to these teens without a parent or guardian present.
[West Hartford Police chief] Strillaci said that the law would cause juvenile courts to see a 60 percent increase in cases, and that police wouldn’t be about to question the teens without a parent or guardian, and that they wouldn’t be able to detain a 16-or 17-year-old.
He said it would prove costly for local police departments that would have to build special cells for the teens and hire more staff.
Note the contradiction there? “They wouldn’t be able to detain the teen”, but “they would have to build special cells and hire more staff”.
You can’t see it, but I’m rolling my eyes right now. Oh boy. Now they can’t get confessions from confused, immature teens. Tragedy.
Kool-Aid drinker
Apr 29th
Western Justice, self-proclaimed small town prosecutor, quotes Alan Dershowitz in asking whether criminal defense attorneys are “lie promoters“.
But let’s say their client comes in, and tells them everything that happened–down to the very last detail, and those details are essentially–I’m guilty, I did it, and everything in the police reports is true.
Under that limited scenario, when a defense attorney goes into court, questions the jury during voir dire, presents an opening statement, cross examines witnesses, and maybe even calls a few witnesses himself, and then argues in closing not just that the District Attorney did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that there are several other reasonable alternatives as to what might have happened, are defense attorneys lie promoters?
Several things struck me about this as problematic. First of all, it would indeed be an extremely rare circumstance in which the defendant actually admits that everything that is alleged is 100% true. There’s a reason for this and it’s not because defendants are liars, but because rarely is everything actually true.
The second, and more fundamental, problem is the abject failure to recognize the system that we have and the distinct roles that prosecutors and defense attorneys fill in that system.
Defense attorneys are not partners in this pursuit of justice – we are defenders of the Constitution and of individual liberties. We are not charged with coming at the truth, but rather ensuring that the Government does not willy-nilly imprison individuals. There is a reason that the burden of proof rests with the State and defendants need not lift a finger at trial.
Yet another thing that bothers me is the holier-than-thou attitude, which I’ve written about several times. Prosecutors like to think of themselves are righteous, can-do-no-wrong proponents of some higher ideal. Yet, time and again, they will take as gospel the drivel spewed forth by cops in “police reports”, ignore blatant lies, “lose” exculpatory information, condone arm-twisting of witnesses and victims. Where is the righteous indignation then? Why no outcry? The hypocrisy is palpable.
If you’re looking for the truth, Mr. Prosecutor, start by asking yourself if you would file a substitute information on a lesser charge or dismiss them entirely if you have any doubt as to the veracity of the facts are reported by the police. And if you would, recognize that it is your job to do so and that you are in the minority. Just as the defense attorney who goes to trial with a client who has “admitted” guilt. And even then, recognize that both the rare prosecutor who does not drink the kool-aid and the defense attorney that goes to trial in those circumstances are obligated to do so. The burden is yours, not ours.
This is not some silly game. The very liberty of individuals hangs in the balance. What I know or do not know about my client’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you can prove that he is guilty.
In the real world, one would assume that if the facts are such that all the elements of the offense would be easily proven, and there is no dispute from the defense, then the case will be plea bargained. But remember that a bargain means give and take. If you make an offer that is essentially the same as what the defendant would get if he went to trial, there is no bargain. You are providing no incentive to avoid putting you to your burden.
Scott provides a fitting conclusion:
But the galling aspect of this “theory” is the implicit assumption that it is the defendant who is inclined to play with the “truth”. I can’t count the number of times some kid prosecutor confuses himself with being Odie to some cop’s Garfield, lapping up whatever story the cop feeds him as if it’s gospel. What makes prosecutors believe, truly believe, that they aren’t getting fed a slab of beef surrounded by a garnish of utter fabrication? This “my cop would never lie” attitude is the mark of naiveté. Cops treat kid prosecutors like the village idiot, too stupid to recognize tailored testimony if their life depended on it.
So is it more fulfilling to claim ownership of the “truth” when it’s the product of child-like self-righteousness? One side has an ethical duty to do justice. The other had a duty to defend a person. That’s the way the system is supposed to work, and to think that there’s one side that owns the truth is just silly.
What say you, WJ?
CT odds and ends
Apr 14th
Some interesting CT stories from today that I’m really just too lazy to make into full-fledged posts.
First, New Haven public defender Tom Ullmann gives the New Haven police department a piece of his mind and takes a few swings at the State’s Attorney’s office too:
Defense attorney Thomas Ullmann has charged that some members of the New Haven Police Department’s Detective Bureau are “incompetent, unprofessional and untruthful” in handling witnesses and investigating crimes. Ullmann, said the detectives’ performance is “at its lowest level in the 30 years I’ve been here.”
Ullmann accused the detectives of “a rush to judgment, not being thorough, not following up on obvious leads.” He said there was “a shocking lapse of asking witnesses investigative questions, such as who had been drinking or doing drugs.” Ullmann added, “Their attitude was ‘the less we know, the better.’ This feeds into their tunnel vision on the case.”
He alleged the Detective Bureau has “a history of suggesting information and providing facts to witnesses and failing to investigate facts pointing in a different direction.” He said in some cases witnesses have been “harassed.”
Moreover, Ullmann charged, “This culture doesn’t exist without some enabling by the state’s attorney’s office. This doesn’t happen without the prosecutors winking and nodding and looking the other way.” He added, “There are some really good prosecutors here, but sometimes people close their eyes to this stuff.”
Yowza!
Second, the Appellate and Supreme Courts might be in danger of losing heating and cooling May 1st onwards. The Supreme Court recently rejected emergency appeals filed by the State to compel the service provider to continue providing past the expiration of the contract on May 1.
On March 27, Hartford Superior Court Judge John J. Langenbach ruled that TEN Company has no obligation to supply the state buildings with heat, or the chilled water that runs air-conditioning systems, after its contract expires.
Langenbach said he could find no legal authority to “force TEN to continue a business relationship with the State that it wishes to end because the State may suffer harm as a result of its failure to plan for the expiration of that relationship.”
The State apparently figured that there’s no way TEN wouldn’t provide heat and a/c, so they have done absolutely nothing to prepare for this.
TEN offered to sell the piping system to the state, but officials didn’t make an offer. Wrote Langenbach: “The State has not taken a single step to begin the process of procuring an alternative source of heating and cooling for the eight buildings.”
Actually, it’s not entirely true that the state has failed to act. “Well, we filed an injunction. We also sought some legislative relief. So those are the things we’ve done,” one state official told Langenbach.
Public Works officials contend that a permanent system would take six years to install, and even a temporary solution would take two years to implement. But Langenbach gave credence to TEN’s general manager, Derek Rudd, who testified that temporary heating and cooling could be put in place “fairly quickly.”
Luckily, the current term of the Courts ends on April 30 (although the next one starts mid-May!). This should get interesting.
Videotaped interrogations pilot program to start soon
Apr 14th
At the end of June, four police departments in CT will begin to videotape interrogations of suspects of violent felonies.
Supporters think such a policy should have been required in Connecticut years ago, especially in light of two high-profile cases in which police were accused of coercing confessions. Law enforcement officials have remained leery, voicing concerns that suspects will balk at being recorded and that defense lawyers will critique interrogation tactics.
In 2003, Illinois became the first state to enact legislation requiring electronic recording of interrogations. Maine and New Mexico soon followed suit. But even those states were a decade behind Alaska and Minnesota, whose supreme courts mandated taping in the mid-1980s. New Hampshire and New Jersey’s supreme courts have since made similar rulings. Additionally, 500 smaller jurisdictions have adopted recording policies.
Under State v. James, a 1996 CT Supreme Court decision, videotaping interrogations is not required. Despite that, many organizations have lobbied tirelessly for requiring such videotaping.
Rep. Michael Lawlor, the committee’s co-chairman, said the measure has been merged with another bill aimed at compensating those wrongfully convicted. He said a Commission on Wrongful Convictions would evaluate the pilot program and report back in January. “Then next year we’ll talk about expanding” the videotaping program said Lawlor.
Lawlor said he believes Connecticut will eventually require recording statewide.
Won’t be too soon.
Who’s putting kids in danger?
Apr 3rd
The world is a big, bad place. It really is. Which is why we have to protect children. No one will argue with that. Which is why there are tons of laws on the books criminalizing conduct that harms children, for the most part with extra penalties. I agree.
One of these laws is the prohibition against selling drugs in a school zone (or within a certain radius around a school, park or some other such location where children congregate). Whatever your views on drugs, I think you would be hard pressed to argue against the notion that children need not be in the presence of drugs or drug activity. We certainly don’t want drugs being sold in the presence of children. Someone sells drugs within 1500 feet of a school, they’re arrested and prosecuted (although in a state like CT, you’d be hard-pressed to find a spot that isn’t within 1500 feet of a school).
So why, then, do police engage in a very curious practice? Those who practice criminal law probably know what I’m about to say.
Cops target a dealer, perhaps making a hand-to-hand through an undercover officer. That’s not enough and they want more. So they arrange to make another purchase and another. Sometimes, they arrange for these transactions to take place in a parking lot of a pharmacy. Sometimes, coincidentally, the parking lot is within 1500 feet of a school.
Arresting a suspect for sale of narcotics isn’t enough – they want to tack on the added punishment of a sale w/in 1500 feet. So to accomplish that, they lure the suspect to a location they know to be w/in 1500 feet of a school.
If we are supposed to be protecting children from this behavior, then why are cops setting up such behavior in the presence of the very children we are trying to protect?
Curious, isn’t it?
Your medicine tastes a bit bitter, no?
Mar 14th
In this world of indiscriminating sex offender registries, violent offender registries, lifetime registration, neighborhood notification and posting of pictures, names and offenses online for everyone to see, it was a bit amusing when law enforcement got their collective panties in a wad over a website called ratemycop.com. Reason Hit and Run explains:
The premise is simple: Sesto wrote to police departments across the country, and obtained a list of the names and badge numbers of their officers. He then posted the names online in a format broken down by state and city, and encouraged users to rate their experiences with individual officers. All of the information he posted was already open to the public. He didn’t post the identities of any undercover officers.
Law enforcement agencies freaked out, saying that making public information available on this website threatened their safety. The site does not post home addresses or information about undercover officers, so that claim seems hollow.
Chief Jerry Dyer, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, voices what sounds like a more honest concern: that officers will face “unfair maligning” by the citizens they serve.
Chief Dyer wants to get legislation passed that would make RateMyCop.com illegal, which, of course, wouldn’t pass constitutional muster in any court in America.
Oh the irony. It’s coming down in buckets. But that’s not all. Godaddy, the service he chose to host this website, took it down with barely 60 seconds notice for “suspicious activity” and then changed its tune to exceeding bandwith or some such nonsense.
He then took the site to another host, which initially accepted his down payment. Then:
They turned him down. After initial accepting his down payment for hosting services, a RackSpace lawyer sent a letter to Sesto stating that, “We believe that the website to be found at www.ratemycop.com as described to our sales representative could create a risk to the health and safety of law enforcement officers.”
By allowing people to write about their experiences with particular officers? I’m not buying it.
Curiously, police agencies have no problem with Cops Writing Cops, which is a site for cops to trash other cops for not showing them “professional courtesy”.
So a website where cops can complain about, essentially, getting ticketed, arrested and charged for breaking the law is okay, but a website where the public they serve does that is unacceptable.
I’m not saying this website should be used to harass people or disclose their personal information or any such thing (just like the ban on vigilante action using information obtained from sex offender registries), I just think their reaction is funny, that’s all.
HT: SOI
Is videotaping interrogations a better solution?
Feb 24th
In my post discussing the demise of Miranda, I approvingly quoted the author’s mention of videotaping confessions as a possible solution. Scott writes today and warns us not to get too invested in videotaped confessions and why they may not be the answer. He is correct in that videotaped confessions are not very helpful and may end up providing the final nail in the coffin of a factually innocent defendant who goes to trial.
Scott’s post seems to focus only on confessions, as opposed to videotaping the entire interrogation(s). That’s the mistake. If we tape the entire interrogation instead, though, these reservations may not exist. Here‘s a report from The Justice Project which argues that entire interrogations must be videotaped. After all, it is the interrogation that Miranda seeks to safeguard. So why should its “replacement” focus only on the confession?
It is the interrogation that needs to be videotaped to provide a complete picture of the voluntariness of a confession. Of what use is a confession only? That is principally the same as a written statement. By that point, the defendant has been broken down and tricked, cajoled or threatened into confessing. If he seems resigned on videotape while delivering his confession, it may be a product either of his guilt overwhelming him or of fatigue and submission.
A google search for videotaped interrogations provides a wealth of information: some as far back as 2002 from Chicago and some more recently from California.
There is, of course, the initial hurdle of resistance from law enforcement to overcome, but as with lineup and ID procedures, the wall is slowly starting to crumble. As of April, 2006, there were 450 law enforcement departments nationwide that required videotaping of interrogations. From Northwestern Law, here [pdf] is a list of agencies in the country today employing some form of videotaping and here [pdf] is a fantastic report (that I intend to read in-depth) from 2004 chronicling police experiences with videotaping interrogations. The New York County Lawyers’ Association has published this report [pdf] calling for interrogations to be videotaped. It analyzes statutes and regulations in various states.
In Connecticut, a pilot program was approved last year for certain jurisdictions. I haven’t heard anything about it or how it is working. Anyone who knows want to chime in? Did any jurisdictions actually sign up for the pilot program? [Previous coverage here and here.]
Once concern from law enforcement is that it may be difficult to videotape interrogations in all circumstances. I don’t think that’s true. If a suspect is arrested in a remote area, cops have two options: (1) use the in-car video system or (2) wait till you get to a police station. What am I missing here?
If the entirety of an interrogation is recorded – videotaped – then it certainly would give the viewer an accurate picture of the voluntariness of an eventual confession.
The only obvious problem that I can see is defining when such a recording must commence. Is “custody” too late in the game? What if there is an audio recording of initial contact and then video recording of an interrogation? I guess the answer will depend on what studies show to be first time that coercive tactics are used. I haven’t done enough research to provide a reasonable answer, but I think it is one that can be answered.
Videotaped interrogations may not be a panacea, but I think they will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
photo credit: werewegian
Our finest
Feb 5th
at their finest. Excuse me while I go throw up.
Part One:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1yUsYIk2EM[/youtube]
Part Two:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ6Lsqmf9yM&feature=related[/youtube]
The secret police
Dec 22nd
When do police officers have the power to carry a weapon, patrol the streets and make arrests, but yet cannot be questioned for their actions? When they’re University Police. Back in May, a 16-yr old boy was arrested for riding his bike on a sidewalk. He was then charged with breach of peace and briefly held in jail.
When his public defender sought disciplinary records for the officers making the arrest, she was told that the records were private and did not have to be disclosed.
While some elite liberal arts schools are nestled amid woods and cow pastures, Yale occupies the heart of a city racked by poverty and crime. Its police department was founded in 1894 when two New Haven cops, assigned to campus, resigned and became special constables for Yale. Today the department has 80sworn officers — roughly a fifth the size of New Haven’s. Its officers have a visible presence downtown and members of the bike patrol are frequently seen, it turns out, pedaling on city sidewalks.
As a private police force, Yale argues, it is exempt from open-records laws. In 1992, New Haven formally relinquished any oversight it may have had. Today, Yale hires, fires, promotes and disciplines its own officers and neither city nor state provides retirement benefits.
Despite that independence in hiring, Yale Police is almost identical to New Haven police in all other aspects. They drive similar cars, wear similar uniforms, have the power to make felony arrests all over the State, receive similar training, follow the same state regulations and even take the same oath.
Yet, they are private and their records are not subject to release. Similar challenges have occurred in other parts of the country, almost always resulting in no success:
The courts, so far, have taken a narrower view. In Georgia, Virginia and Massachusetts, attempts to gain access to campus crime records have failed, but legislatures in all three states have since introduced sunshine laws to bring more transparency.
By hiding behind the shield of student privacy, the schools are jeopardizing public safety, says S. Daniel Carter, vice president of Security on Campus, a national watchdog group. “Our concern lies with making sure communities are informed about crime and what’s being done to protect them,” he said.
This matter has been appealed to the FOI Commission. The mighty power of Yale is being tested.
Hartford PD launches internal affairs investigation
Aug 14th
Oh boy. I’m never going to hear the end of this from clients 
But seriously, the Hartford PD is being tight-lipped about an internal affairs investigation into two incidents of mishandling evidence.
[A]ccording to sources inside the department, detectives in the major crimes division got a search warrant to look for a gun at a home on Wadsworth Street. Inside the home, police found drugs and money, according to the source. When officers returned to headquarters, some of the money was missing, the source said.
Sources told Eyewitness News that the following day, one detective was told not to come to work. Two days later, the source said, he was reassigned within major crimes.
Chief Daryl K. Roberts said that another unrelated case of alleged evidence mishandling is under investigation within the booking department.
An attorney for the police union told Eyewitness News that the missing money was never recovered and that the union has not been officially contacted about either investigation.
I’m not sure Hartford needs this. What with the mysterious death of Carlos Alvarado and the scrutiny given the New Haven Police Department after the Billy White arrest, people aren’t very confident in the abilities of the police forces in cities.
recent comments